Catch-22
nope the King of Vegas is yet to be crowned...tonite's the last episode & its down to one pro - poker player David Williams - and two donkeys. The strange thing about this show was the equalizing power of not only having so many amateurs in contention (As in the recently taped WSoBJ) but the fact that many of the games were not only so luck-based (Roulette, Red Dog, Pai Gow, etc) but had multipliers attached to the payouts that effectively leveled the playing field over the short-term. I still felt that my knowledge of betting correlations and other general tournament math gave me a big edge over the field, and hey, 9 out of 10 episodes ain't bad! But not good enough, and i will probably forever be tormented by being called all-in by a donkey with bottom pair and no kicker...i can rant & rave all i want, but as the better player who read my opponent as weak on that final hand and tried to push him outta the pot, i should've realized that bad players just won't make the laydowns you expect them to make -- so ultimately, it was my fault for exposing myself to getting caught in a semi-bluff.
In terms of talking up a storm, it truly didn't distract me from making the same decisions i woulda made, regardless of the often faulty voiceover from the 'cemmentators.' You bring up an interesting point though, about how 'exciting' these gambling shows are/need to be in order to attract an audience...obviously, we the gambling faithful will watch just about anything related to what we do on television, but the trick is in retaining the much larger mass public. And that's a realm in which gambling skill is only a fraction of the big picture -- memorable, exciting characters are instrumental to creating that. Unfortuneately this often presents a paradoxical situation, in which what is good for the target, mainstream audience alienates the purists, and what is desired by the gambling-savvy is often boring or uneventful to the general public.
King of Vegas certainly played much more to the mainstream in many of its casting, editing, and stylistic choices (and, unfortunately, in just plain not paying attention to the many basic gambling details that would have been easy to rectify had some more homework been done in the writing phase); but one cannot ignore the fact that its ratings were much higher than many of the other blackjack shows that have been attempted thus far. That means an audience was there, albeit one not nearly as sophisticated as we all would have hoped for a show with an initial concept that seemed to have much potential.
I for one am always conscious of the balancing act between creating the drama/conflict/character/showmanship that will make for better ratings to the general public, while never losing sight of the vast amount of training, discipline and work that goes into truly calling oneself a pro player. Often its difficult to serve these two masters, and unfortunately i learn more and more about these often mutually exclusive concepts every day. But after over 40 episodes of gambling television under my belt in the last 2 years, i guess i must be doing something right -- so i'll keep plodding along. And maybe next year i'll finally win that damn million dollar prize in some spectacular Survivor-meets-WSOP-meets-extreme-sports hybrid that endeavors once again to name some man, woman, or child the best something-or-other of all the something-or-others. Hey, as long as there's a cash prize & it has to do with gambling, its all good, right?
-hd.
